Why Trump is after NATO...only 5 countries out of 27 members are meeting their pledge!

[healthmyths]

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Another solution would be to drop our percentage contribution to match theirs...how about that one?

I am 100% on board with dropping our military spending to 2% of our GDP, that is a great plan...that way we only spend more than the next 4 countries vice the next 9


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

"Vice"???

So you'd be in favor of reducing our armed forces from 1,281,900 active service to 600,000 as well as the 801,200 reserves to 400,000?
Mothballing 220 of The fleet consists of roughly 430 ships in active service or reserve Here’s the Entire U.S. Navy Fleet in One Chart
Cutting the 13,362 total aircraft by half or less then 7,000... Right? 2018 United States Military Strength
Cutting Tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, etc. from 47,648 to 23,000 sound right?
2018 United States Military Strength

Yea that's what I'd expect from someone who deals in such general banalities, exaggerated assumptions, and basically grossly ignorant intelligence!

TraitorGator... you need to spend a little more time gathering information and THEN making your gross exaggerated assumptions!
What a dummy you are TraitorGator... maybe you have been ducking when someone hollers "FORE"!!!!

It can be done over time so as to not kill the economy. Initially money can be saved by pulling out of places like Afghanistan and other places we have no business being in.

Then over time both equipment and personnel can slow be taken down through attrition and targeted buy outs.

There is no rational reason we need to spend more than the next 9 countries on our military.

You are quite the cheerleader for the military, just not enough to actually put yourself on the line for the country. You are just one more freeloader


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

So your expert opinion regarding Afghanistan considered do you remember WHY we went there in the first place? I bet you don't. You just mouth what you hear from the extremely
biased MSM and your hatred of America and Trump shows that. I'm sure you don't know why. But I'd like you to explain two things;
A) Your expertise on Afghanistan
B) Why you think we should withdraw.


You realize that Trump agrees with you!

When Trump announced in August that he was ordering a new approach to the war, he said he realized “the American people are weary of war without victory.”
He said his instinct was to pull out, but that after consulting with aides, he decided to seek “an honorable and enduring outcome.” He said that meant committing more resources to the war, giving commanders in the field more authority and staying in Afghanistan for as long as it takes.
Amid little scrutiny, US military ramps up in Afghanistan

 

[buckeye45_73]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

 

[Flopper]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

We could get by on 2% if we quit policing the world and quit using our military as a political tool


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you're actually suggesting is backing off from a world leadership role as that is what a huge military presence buys the US.

The question is would we be satisfied with whoever filled our shoes, and rest assure one or more of the major powers would? China, Russia, and Germany would certainly benefit from a US retrenchment.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is after NATO because that is what Vladimir wants.

Have you notices how Trump tackles a problem that has been with us for years and is certainly not a priority item, such as US contributions to NATO? He exaggerates it's importance, makes outrageous threats like pulling out of Europe, has closed door meetings, then claims the problems are solved, all is is good, pledges his undying support, announces they have reached an agreement (not true), turning around years decrease spending (not true), then takes credit for an increased in funding negotiated under Obama in 2014. Then it's on to solve the next big problem.

Uh they haven't hit their targets. And Obama wouldn't make it mandatory until 2024, Trump is saying fuck that, you need to do it now. So learn ALL the facts. And the question is why haven't they been doing it before? is Trump correct when he says they are taking advantage of us and using our military as their defense? YES!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

We could get by on 2% if we quit policing the world and quit using our military as a political tool


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you're actually suggesting is backing off from a world leadership role as that is what a huge military presence buys the US.

The question is would we be satisfied with whoever filled our shoes, and rest assure one or more of the major powers would? China, Russia, and Germany would certainly benefit from a US retrenchment.

We could still be world leaders even workout spending more than the next 9 countries on our military.

Is the US nothing more than its military might? Is there not more to us than that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Thinker101]

We should teach NATO a lesson and drop our expenditures to 2 percent GDP rather than expect them to raise theirs to 4 percent

But we never asked to raise to 4%... simply 2%.
But the USA can NOT afford to Lower our defense spending by nearly $300 billion... that would be stupid.
I don't think you understand the formula.
NATO requests NOT demanded that as this chart shows... the NATO member would spend not on NATO but on their OWN military at least 2% of their GDP.
Do you understand exactly what it is now?

All the Presidents of the USA going back to Clinton was to ask NATO members to spend 2% or more on THEIR OWN military.

View attachment 204298

If other nations get by with 2 percent GDP...why can’t we?


Think of what we are missing out on

We could get by on 2% if we quit policing the world and quit using our military as a political tool


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

What you're actually suggesting is backing off from a world leadership role as that is what a huge military presence buys the US.

The question is would we be satisfied with whoever filled our shoes, and rest assure one or more of the major powers would? China, Russia, and Germany would certainly benefit from a US retrenchment.

We could still be world leaders even workout spending more than the next 9 countries on our military.

Is the US nothing more than its military might? Is there not more to us than that?


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well, there are 9 countries that may feel that way.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

 

[Flopper]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

 

[Flopper]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

In addition to maintaining a military of a minimum of 2% of GDP, members make agreed upon contributions in two forms, Direct, which are contributions of troops and equipment to defend any member state and indirect which covers service to all members such as maintenance of air defense, intelligent and general overhead. It's my understanding that all members do meet their agreement on contributions to both indirect and direct funding.

 

[buckeye45_73]

Charles Payne's tweet...

Is NATO ready? Germany's Military Readiness

• 95/244 Leopard battle tanks operational
• 0/6 Submarines operational
• 9/15 Frigates in service
• 0/14 transport aircraft airworthy 21,000
• Junior officer/NCO positions unfilled 6/30 Logistical battalions fully equipped

Charles V Payne (@cvpayne) | Twitter

And that's why Trump wants NATO members to step up because true members of NATO are suppose to make
military expenditures equal to a % of their GDP... here are the top
First of all NATO members agreed:
Even though this would be a sharp increase on current spending,
it would still fall short of the 2 percent[of GDP] threshold NATO countries agreed to at the 2014 summit in Wales.

Defense Expenditures Of NATO Members Visualized [Infographic]

Yet look at the following chart!
Remember they agreed to spend 2% of their GDP... Only
The USA and United Kingdom,Poland,Greece, and Estonia.. 5 out of 27 countries are meeting the requirements.
This is what Trump means when he said they need to do what they agreed to!
View attachment 204014

Trump is attacking NATO on Putin's orders. Period!

Trump is attacking NATO by having countries pay there fair share, even increasing percentage paid? Somehow that's a Putin request? Say what?

4 years ago it was agreed that within 10 years they would spend 2% of their GDP on their military...they have 6 years left to meet that agreement...


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

That agreement was a target and not a firm figure. In discussions in 2013, there was a general agreement that some countries will always spend more than 2% because they have large military commitments other than NATO and some smaller countries will not be able to make the 2% target.

Why its a percentage...cut some welfare if you have to.....but step it up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

And NATO is telling him to fuck himself, as they should.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

 

[buckeye45_73]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

And NATO is telling him to fuck himself, as they should.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Why should they?
They have been using our military for decades, we're asking for them to contribute a little, what is wrong with that?

 

[healthmyths]

Once again our President does the right thing and putting spotlight on the deadbeat NATO countries not paying their dues. PC is a disease and Donald J Trump is the cure.

Uhhh...this is not about dues, this is about individual military expenditures.

well under the agreement, they have to spend %2.0 of their GDP on defense and most are not making it, do dues may not be technically correct, it's more a synonym

They do not have to spend that till starting in 2024, so nobody is “not making” It yet since the agreement was for 10 years from 2014.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Right, but my point is, Trump is saying do it now.......which needs to be done.....10 years....only Obama would think that's a good idea...

And NATO is telling him to fuck himself, as they should.


Sent from my iPhone using USMessageBoard.com

Well way to go TraitorGator... proving ONCE again that your hatred of Trump supersedes your "love" of country. Your supposedly service is so tainted now that I have no problem in saying you are without a stain on the uniform you were. Way to go and maybe you should comprehend the concept of "politics ends at the water's edge"... way to go!
Proves all my posts that you are someone who HATES Trump more than you love America.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

First, the tax cut package is a home run for small business and the self employed, of which I am a member of that group. The number of self employed has been rising over the past 20 years and will continue to do so. Have you ever paid self employment taxes? Self employed face a lot of costs and regulations. I am hoping the tax plan was just the start of better things to come. The 20% self employment deduction is a nice start.

Good for you. That does not negate the damage that it will do to a lot of other people, such as those in high tax states who have lost a large chunk of their deductions for state and local taxes. When people have less disposable income, they buy less. Think about the effect of that on small businesses. You are also brushing aside the reality of the long term detrimental effects on the nation by blowing up the deficit. The whole idea of trickledown economics -which is what any benefit to the middle class is predicated on-was debunked as voodoo economics in the Reagan era. So enjoy your little tax cut while the rest of the country -except for the wealthy circles the drain but don’t be surprised if you get sucked down with it. Your short-cited selfishness – along with trite one-line snippet about who it benefits is what pissed me off. That and the lies being told by the right.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As for the trade wars, your statement assumes the trade deals we have are good ones, or at least fair. I do not believe they are good. That said, I welcome any Democrat or Republican to make being "Pro NAFTA" a big part of their platform. Good luck to them if they do. If not, we need to move towards better deals.

I never assumed anything. You’re just making that shit up. You’re brilliant reasoning is that because some trade deals are flawed, we should throw the baby out with the bath water. Right? It is not necessary to piss off and alienate allies and important trading partners to negotiate fixes . Do you have any fucking idea what Trumps tariffs the ensuing retaliation is going to cost the US economy?

How Trump's trade war is already costing consumers

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I am concerned about climate change. But, I will take my lead from all those celebrity environmentalist. When they stop buying ocean front, 10,000 sf mansions, flying private jets and start acting like they are serious about it, I will as well. I am dim witted, as you stated, so I need them to lead by example for me to get with it.

That sounds like a bunch of horseshit to me. A piss poor excuse for sticking your head in the sand. Maybe these people are being hypocritical, but that does not negate the strong arguments that climate change is real and a serious threat in many ways, nor does it absolve anyone of their responsibility . This is nothing more than an appeal to hypocrisy logical fallacy

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

As far as NATO goes, many countries in Europe don't seem to take NATO pledges very seriously. And they need to do so. The United States has come to Europe's aid before and will again if needed. Are you scared of Russia? Didn't President Obama point out to Romney that Russia was not the threat it once was and "the 1980s wanted its foreign policy back"? I tend to agree with Obama. The United States is not an empire.

Really? What NATO countries do not take their pledges seriously? Do you think that they won’t come to the aide of the US if needed? And whatever Obama said to Romney 5 or 6 years ago, was, week, 5 or six years ago. If you do not think that NATO is valuable then think again

https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm

You’re just spewing this crap because your boy T-Rump is doing it.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Of course, I care about myself. I also breath air, have health insurance and run a business. So, what is good for me is good for many others as well, at least that is how I look at it.

You can take care of yourself without being a selfish prick about it and kissing up to those who down give a shit about others.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That's how I feel. I am not sure if being dim witted means that I need to swear or call you and names. Let me know, maybe someone can suggest a few that might be appropriate.

Get over it. If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay on the porch